2 Psychological evidence proves we don’t identify with our future selves. Continuous personal identity doesn’t exist.Opar 14:"The British philosopher ... treat other people."(Alisa Opar is the articles editor at Audubon magazine; cites Hal Hershfield, an assistant professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business; and Emily Pronin, a psychologist at Princeton) “Why We Procrastinate” Nautilus January 2014

Use epistemic modesty – A) It maximizes the probability of achieving net most moral value—beating a framework acts as mitigation to their impacts but the strength of that mitigation is contingent B) Aff strat – key to let the aff leverage aff offense against nonreciprocal NCs and frameworks that lean heavily neg - otherwise neg ballots are way too easy since they just have to win a tiny risk that their framework is better.

3 All facts are reducible to scientific facts because everything is caused by the physical rather than the metaphysical. This means that moral considerations must be based in physical experiences of our mental states. Any non-natural theory is epistemically unaccessible.Papineau 07:"Moore took this ... knowledge of them."Papineau, David. British philosopher. “Naturalism.” SEP. 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/.

Extinction first.Pummer 15:"If the happiness ... On What Matters)"Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. “Moral Agreement on Saving the World” Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015 AT

12/5/18

1 - K - Fiat

Tournament: St Marks | Round: 3 | Opponent: Austin SFA JH | Judge: Gabriel SanchezThe aff’s language game is inevitably abstract. By confining material realities and action against oppression to single speech acts via the politics of legal imagination they preclude the possibility of responsibility and any radical politics by failing to recognize how the material influences the law’s application. Turns case – they claim portable skills, but their model of debate doesn’t recognize the oppression underlying their blanket assessments of materiality.Elbert 95:"What remains of ... its phrase universe"Teresa L. Elbert 95(English Department at the State University of New York, Albany, Rethinking Marxism Association for Economic and Social Analysis, vol 8 no 2, “The Knowable Good--Post-al Ethics, the Question of Justice and Red Feminism”, http://xgridmac.dyndns.org/~thiebaut/www_etext_org/Politics_4014/AlternativeOrange/5/v5n1_kg4.html) MK

This detachment from the material underpinnings of violence inevitably creates alienation from responsibility towards oppression. This effectively kills any portable impact for debate.Kappeler 95:"‘We are the ... a moral revolution.'"Susanne Kappeler, associate professor at Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The Politics of Personal Behaviour, (1995) –3 MK

Their use of fiat as a means by which to make demands and attempt to create movements to force concessions is a farce – the legal imagination inherent in policy implementation actively inhibits our ability to organize against the stateTraber 18:"Focusing on policy ... of political tactics."(Becca Traber, Jan 17th 2018, “Fiat and Radical Politics”, NSDUpdate) http://nsdupdate.com/2018/fiat-and-radical-politics-by-becca-traber/ || LB

The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who endorses the best model for debate

Vote negative to engage in a prefigurative politics, defined as a first personal practice aimed at creating change in the present. Instead of making demands to people who hold power, first person politics means that we actualize our values by altering the way that we live.Gordon 05:"From a strategical ... the present tense."Uri Gordon is an Israeli anarchist theorist and activist. He is a lecturer at the University of Nottingham, and formerly at Loughborough University in the UK and the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in Ketura, Israel. “LIBERATION NOW: PRESENT-TENSE DIMENSIONS OF CONTEMPORARY ANARCHISM.” 2005. MK*Bifo

12/7/18

1 - K - Laruelle

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Oak Hall KZ | Judge: Miguel Harvey, Cameron McConway, Katya EhresmanAll philosophical worldviews contain an inherent philosophical decision which posits the Real as X. This commits a fundamental error as it presupposes the accessibility to know the status of the real. These analyses rely on the belief that everything is philosophizable; that all can be reduced to human cognition. All worldviews are unilaterally determined and foreclosed from ever capturing a legitimate premise of the real One.Laruelle:"Principal and formalized ... or the One."(Fancois Laruelle, May 1st 2013, “Dictionary of Non-Philosophy”, Univocal) || LB

Their affirmation of the queer suicide bomber is the link, the declaration of the real as queerness always produces an in-between which commits a philosophical decision; they posit their queerness AS ESSENTIAL to the debate. Their theorizing is a philosophy of queerness while the alt is a philosophy through that queerness;The link is the being of becoming- Their notion of subjectivity as always in flux and immanent queerness combs over the reality that we’re stable in that flux; they ignore the being of becoming. They’re heteronormative in their capturing of the queer suicide bomber. Kolozova 14:"The poststructuralist propagation ... based, namely, deconstruction?"(Katerina Kolozova, January 1st 2014, “Cut of the Real: Subjectivity in Poststructuralist Philosophy”, Columbia University Press) || LB

These “philosophical decisions” have a cultural element that spread through the collective unconscious establishing a general consensus and presentation of the world through the dominant paradigm of whiteness, deeming blackness as non-human. This presentation isn’t ontological but social. Darren Wilson had internalized the philosophical decision of whiteness which dictates reality as dialectically oppositional to the blackness intrinsic to Michael Brown; the day-to-day violence that occurs against black bodies is a manifestation of whiteness’s paradigm that posits the Real as anti-black. To accept this framing of blackness reifies social death.Smith and Wilderson 16:"as a grammar ... to worldly harassment.”(Anthony Paul Smith, half of card is a Wilderson quote Smith evaluates and extends, May 31st 2016, “Laruelle: A Stranger Thought”, Polity) || LB

The alternative is to negate and endorse a non-philosophical radicalization of the aff’s thought-world; they operate under the philosophy of queerness posited by Puar; the alternative is a recognition of that cognition isn’t above immanence but rather we theorize through immanence. Any declarative claim to the Real proves complete competition.Smith 16:"Ethics is still ... the next chapter."(Anthony Paul Smith, May 31st 2016, “Laruelle: A Stranger Thought”, Polity) || LB

12/5/18

1 - K - Laruelle v2

Tournament: Valley RR | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lake Highland JW | Judge: Spencer Orlowski, Chris CastilloAll philosophical worldviews contain an inherent philosophical decision which posits the Real as X. This commits a fundamental error as it presupposes the accessibility to know the status of the real. These analyses rely on the belief that everything is philosophizable; that all can be reduced to human cognition. What we need is to come to the realization that the Real is the backdrop upon which cognition occurs; all worldviews are unilaterally determined and foreclosed from capturing the Real.Laruelle:"Principal and formalized ... or the One."(Fancois Laruelle, May 1st 2013, “Dictionary of Non-Philosophy”, Univocal) || LB

Their notion of causality links – the division of the world into cause and effect posits a truth of the One rather the ultimate cause is the Real, everything else is artificial including the aff.Smith:"Determination-in-the- ... (of)-thought, respectively."(Anthony Paul Smith, May 31st 2016, “Laruelle: A Stranger Thought”, Polity) || LB

At the heart of the affirmative project exists a belief of ressentiment – that the world is imperfect and things must change. This combs over the self-replicating feature of the decisional structure non-philosophy indicts for them there’ll always be another problem to solve, another existential risk to mitigate, another other to exterminate. The alternative symbolizes an abandonment of any demand upon the world for the world itself must be viewed as a hallucination distancing us from the One, incapable of reduction to simplistic philosophies.Smith 16:"Production is not ... philosophy to date."(Anthony Paul Smith, May 31st 2016, “Laruelle: A Stranger Thought”, Polity) || LB

Vote negative and live non-philosophically – In response to this ambiguity of the Real we must approach all cognition non-philosophically. This doesn’t operate as a negation of philosophy but rather of the philosophical decision which creates totalizing assumptions. To live non-philosophically is to establish an experience of philosophy, the gutting of all thought’s fundamental axioms deduces it to the material production of philosophy in which it can be molded for more productive purposes. Maoilearca 15:"So what fresh ... of the real."(John O Maoilearca, May 17th 2015, “Galloway’s Non-Digital Introduction to Laruelle”, Los Angles Review of Books) || LB

The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best affirms productive modes of thought. The decisional structure of modern thought establishes a circular nature to all logic underlying philosophical theories; the framing of the world that it presents itself for the purpose of capture through thought assumes a privileged, outside all-observing perspective of the Real that can grasp its true nature in the unity of a simple theory to guide our conduct. This fundamental belief has made any valid epistemology of the world unapproachable. The question of the K always precludes. Alkon and Gunjevic 11:"François Laruelle is ... is not thought."(Gabriel Alkon and Boris Gunjevic, April 19th 2011, “According to the Identity or the Real: The Non-Philosophical Thought of Immanence”, City University of New York Department of English) || LB

12/7/18

1 - K - Laruelle v3

Tournament: Lexington | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake JP | Judge: Kevin LiOn the night of August 9th 2014, Darren Wilson, an enforcer of the anti-black world shot down unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown. Wilson got off free of any charges; this act of gratuitous violence was cognitively shaped by white supremacy, Wilson had internalized the philosophical decision of whiteness which dictates reality as dialectically oppositional to the blackness intrinsic to Michael Brown; this logic is replicated by the philosophical decision of the affirmative rendering blackness as an ONTOLOGICAL exclusion. Smith 16:“as a grammar ... to worldly harassment.”(Anthony Paul Smith, half of card is a Wilderson quote Smith evaluates and extends, May 31st 2016, “Laruelle: A Stranger Thought”, Polity) || LB

The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who best engages in a dissection of philosophy

Vote neg to engage in sacrilegious heresy – modern academic praxis propagates the unassimilable base of all existence known as the Real into the intelligible realm of philosophy to relinquish existential consternation. To form oneself as a heretic renders a non-philosophically productive relationship to their practice as an expression of the Real rather than a domination of the Real distancing us from norms of philosophy. Brassier 03:"There are at ... in what follows."(Ray Brassier, Sep/Oct 2003, “Axiomatic heresy: The non-philosophy of Francois Laruelle”, Radical Philosophy) https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/axiomatic-heresy || LB

The alternative is to adopt and embrace a philosophy of vaporwave culture which opens up an accelerationist relation to capitalism’s extraction of meaning reclaiming subjectivity from the desire abused in processes of commodification.Harper 12:"Is it a ... and false promises”(Adam Harper, PhD student in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at the University of Cambridge, and a member of King's College, 12-7-2012, "Comment: Vaporwave and the pop-art of the virtual plaza," DummyMag) http://www.dummymag.com/Features/adam-harper-vaporwave || LB

Vaporwave is the starting point- you have to realize no one cares about your commie bs; but people like music. In developing an appreciation of the paradoxical conditions of ownership of property under capitalism through vaporwave- one is directly pitted against their internal beliefs regarding the systemUnknown 15:"The intellectual property ... start questioning Capitalism."(Reddit account that posted this deleted, 2015, subreddit is still up and link works, it's an analytic argument means creds aren’t relevant I could’ve just not carded this and still be as valid just like the articulation) https://www.reddit.com/r/Vaporwave/comments/3d2et5/in_need_to_understand_modern_capitalism/ || LB

We transcend the materiality imposed on subjectivity in capitalism- vaporwave operates through the opening of spaces of resistance in which autonomy is reclaimed as an acceptance of the virtual. This establishes a culture of liquidated meaning opposed to capitalism.Whiteley and Rambarran 16:"Francesco, your comments ... formulate around music."(Sheila Whiteley and Shara Rambarran, Shara Rambarran is an assistant professor at Bader International Study Centre has PhD in Music, PGCE in music, and BA in Popular Music Studies, Sheila Whiteley has an international reputation as a feminist musicologist, writer and researcher into issues of identify and subjectivity, 1-14-16,The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality. New York City: Oxford UP, 2016. Print) || LB

12/15/18

1 - PIC - Lacking the Ballot

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: James Bowie TW | Judge: John SassoCP: The neg should fill out the ballot for the judgeA desire to win in the judges eyes partakes in the symbolic economy as an exchange for fulfillment which never comes. Framing the judge’s ballot as an object of one’s desire creates the symbolic debate identity of a win-loss ratio, reject this mindset to accept the lack of inherent meaning in winning and transcend this categorization through conceding. Savoy:"According to Jean ... for subjective fulfillment."

1 - ROTB - TT

The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution.

Debate is a competitive game- just like any other, the better competitor wins, even if there are different ways to play the game, you would not determine who wins based on those factors, for instance you wouldn’t decide who won a basketball game based on who shot three’s the best, even if that is important, you ultimately evaluate who had the most points. Even if you disagree that debate is a game, I think it is which means you should concede since I care about winning.

2. Fiat is illusory. Nothing leaves this round other than the results on the ballot- this means even if we hypothetically breakdown oppression, it ultimately makes no real world difference other than on the ballot which means it makes no sense to be the actual role of the ballot- at the very best you can write whatever you think is important on the ballot but still evaluate based on the better debater better for your position since more people will talk about it if it loses.

3. Inclusion- Any offense can function under truth testing whereas your specific role of the ballot excludes all strategies but yours. This is bad for inclusive debates because people without every technical skill or comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out of your scholarship which turns your ROB- truth testing solves because you can do what you’re good at and so can I. This is also better for education because me engaging in a debate I know nothing about doesn’t help anyone. o/w since it is a real world implication in round rather than a thought experiment that doesn’t do anything.

4. Fundamentals- denying truth testing denies the fundamental thesis of the debate activity and the AC/NC thesis since every underlying principle is the acquisition of knowledge which is derived from some conception of what is true and internalizing those facts. This means a denial of truth testing is impossible in the context of an academic setting and undermines their position since it is impossible to gain any knowledge without knowing what is true.

C. Standards1) Limits- The aff has nothing to do with the resolution that explodes limits since you can justify literally anything. 5 impacts A) Predictability- I can’t predict what the affirmative will read; that outweighs the K since what I predict you read is how I base my prep before round B) Cherrypicking- you justify the aff picking out some infinitesimal argument for strategic purposes and basing the entirety of their offense on it. Outweighs since no constraints results in you creating abusive affirmatives with no turn or DA ground I can link into. C) Accessibility- small schools can’t prep for as many affirmatives which means your norm actively excludes participation. Outweighs since all argumentation assumes access to this discursive realm. D) Prep Burdens- infinite aff’s means I can never meet my the sufficient prep burden required to respond to the aff. Turns the K- if you care about the K you should care about its engagement which you actively inhibit. E) Anxiety- tournaments are already a toxic environment, and the last thing someone needs to hear before the round is that you’re reading an aff they have no good case neg to, with literature they aren’t familiar with and you know infinitely more than they do, after they have sacrificed hours of their time going in depth on topic research. Impacts to accessibility since you further exclusion of certain groups. (creds to Daniel H)

D. Voters

Fairness- abuse arbitrarily skews your evaluation of the round. Drop the debater on T- A Substance is already skewed I’m always behind on the AC which means T comes first; abuse in the NC was reactive to AC abuse. B Drop the argument means you still lose; voting off anything else is severance. Use competing interps- A Reasonability is arbitrary especially with definitions which carry subjective interpretations B reasonability collapses to competing interps its just a question of whether your offense meets some brightline. No RVIs on T- A Chilling Effect- disincentivizes T triggers my offense if I win my norm is good. B Logic – you shouldn’t win for meeting your burden of being topical else we’d affirm every round. Outweighs – logic is process we use to make arguments. Aff can’t leverage case- A) Truth is determined through contestation which fairness controls the internal link to; means we can’t adjudicate the truth of your warrants. B) We indicted the ability to read that argument in the first place so logically we’re on a higher layer. C) Preserve the sanctity of theory form substance; 2 reasons 1) k2 maintain theory as recourse against abuse; its impossible to check since extinction probably outweighs fairness. 2) Conflates the pre and post-fiat distinction; EG. donating to charity doesn’t mean you should win if util is true.

12/5/18

JANFEB - NC - Agamben

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: New Trier PT | Judge: Nirmal BalachundharThe aff burden is to prove the state’s power can be limited while the neg burden is to prove it cannot i.e. when the state limits their own power they are taking efforts to help nations attain their own status. Prefer 1 Real world – the aff would be an incoherent policy if it was impossible, its effectiveness wouldn’t matter. That’s why policy makers don’t debate over outrageous policies like killing all sheep – they may seem good in the abstract, but are impossible to apply. Key to fairness and education since it’s the basis for prep and a coherent understanding of the res. 2 Conceptual necessity – If the state cannot conceptually be obligated to externally take an action, then it means restricting it’s action is incoherent – it presupposes some binding force. Means (a) you’d still negate even if the burden is false since it proves the resolution false (b) it’s a prereq to debating the res since my burden evaluates what it means to affirm or negate. 3 Hijacks your role of the ballot – (a) strategies against oppression must be pragmatic, otherwise you get stuck in ivory-towered theorizing which doesn’t lead to tangible change (b) whether or not a prohibition is a good methodology against oppression relies on how the state relates to it as an agent.Now negate, the constitutive feature of the law is that the sovereign creates it, but the sovereign lives outside of the law and has complete control over the it. The sovereign is the only authority over the law, creating a state of exception; the state cannot undermine the sovereign in the state of exception. Thus, any principle that mandates the state to act is impossible.Agamben 04:"The paradox of ... an exception (Ausnahme)." Agamben, Giorgio. “Homo Sacer – Sovereign Power and Bare Life”. Translated by Daniel Heller-Rozan. Published 2004. Bracketed for gendered language AA

You negate since the state can never limit its own authority since under a state of exception, the sovereign has complete control. Even if you institute a policy for restricting military aid, the sovereign can discount those legal limitations through the state of exception.

JANFEB - T - Nebel

Authoritarian regimes is a generic bare plural – not existential – semantically incoherent to parametrize. Nebel 18:"I have elsewhere ... in both respects.(Jake Nebel, 2018, “The Meaning of the Resolution”, VBI’s thing ask me and I can send) || LB

B. Violation- they spec

C. Standards

1 Precision- A controls I/L to fairness; it’s the one most likely to be represented in topic lit and thus is the basis of all substantive arguments B I coopt pragmatics first offense- we use pragmatics to compare between two legitimate semantic interps of the topic, but theirs isn’t even eligible for comparison. C Jurisdiction- judge is contractually obligated by the tournament to vote aff is the resolution is proven true- means semantics first.

2 Argumentative Constraints- they arbitrarily explode predictable constraints for argumentation A authoritarian is subjective – can restrict provision to legit anything B many forms of military aid.3 impacts A) Predictability- I can’t predict what the affirmative will read; that outweighs the CI since what I predict you read is how I base my prep before round B) Cherrypicking- you justify the aff picking out some infinitesimal argument for strategic purposes and basing the entirety of their offense on it. Outweighs since no constraints results in you creating abusive affirmatives with no turn or DA ground I can link into. C) Anxiety- tournaments are already a toxic environment, and the last thing someone needs to hear before the round is that you’re reading an aff they have no good case neg to, with literature they aren’t familiar with and you know infinitely more than they do, after they have sacrificed hours of their time going in depth on topical research. Impacts to accessibility since you further exclusion of certain people.

3 TVA Solves- they can defend whole res but use their plan as an advantage. Weighing args can encourage the neg to engage on the specificities of the aff so there’s no education tradeoff.

D. Voters Fairness- abuse arbitrarily skews your evaluation of the round. Drop the debater on T- A Substance is already skewed I’m always behind on the AC which means T comes first; abuse in the NC was reactive to AC abuse. B Drop the argument means you still lose; voting off anything else is severance. Use competing interps- A Reasonability is arbitrary especially with definitions which carry subjective interpretations B reasonability collapses to competing interps its just a question of whether your offense meets some brightline. No RVIs on T- A Chilling Effect- disincentivizes T triggers my offense if I win my norm is good. B Logic – you shouldn’t win for meeting your burden of being topical else we’d affirm every round. Outweighs – logic is process we use to make arguments.

12/14/18

NOVDEC - CP - Public Funding

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brophy CP CT | Judge: Ari MostowCP: The Supreme Court of the United States, on the next available test case, should rule mandatory public funding for campaign efforts through vouchers with a set-ceiling

Most likely cause of global conflict, but solving it is a dampener, and the aff can’t turn itLehane 17:In his book ... control and influence."Sinéad Lehane is research manager for Future Directions International’s Global Food and Water Crises Research program. Her current research projects include Australia’s food system and water security in the Tibetan Plateau region. Shaping Conflict in the 21st Century—The Future of Food and Water Security. February 2, 2017. www.hidropolitikakademi.org/shaping-conflict-in-the-21st-century-the-future-of-food-and-water-security.html

Readings will be inaccurately portrayed – the science is too indeterminate to make any conclusion about the fitness of someone to govern Green 08:"Some associations between ... the association is.(Robert Green, 2008, “The Genetic Privacy of Presidential Candidates”, New England Journal of Medicine)

False conclusions from bad readings of genomes magnifies pre-existing prejudices which cedes politics to fascists, only those that fall in line with the mainstream view of a politician will be included in political decision making.Green 08:"For the foreseeable ... on personalized genomics."(Robert Green, 2008, “The Genetic Privacy of Presidential Candidates”, New England Journal of Medicine)

NOVDEC - DA - HIPAA

The plan shreds HIPPA -~-- no exceptions!Girgis 16:"As with most ... to see it."Linda Girgis 16 Dr. Linda Girgis MD, FAAFP, is a dedicated board-certified family physician in private practice in South River, New Jersey and its surrounding communities. She is a clinical assistant professor at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School as well as a faculty member of CME courses at Harvard Medical School “Breaching HIPAA: How Politics Breaches Its Own Laws.” October 17, 2016. IB

Key to doctor trust.Walker et al. 16:"But changing the ... their own health care."Jan Walker, RN, is cofounder of OpenNotes and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Catherine L. Annas, JD, is a quality improvement project manager at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Tom Delbanco, MD, is cofounder of OpenNotes and professor of general medicine and primary care at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “HIPAA turns 20: It opened the door to better doctor-patient communication” August 19, 2016. https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/19/hipaa-medical-records-patients-doctors/ IB

NOVDEC - K - Bifo

Tournament: Middleton | Round: 4 | Opponent: Apple Valley DM | Judge: Nick StumbrisThe appeal to information as a means of democratic truth-speaking is a procedure in the nihilistic dissection of the world within the paradigm of absolute transparency. Their faith in consciousness raising and knowledge as a methodology for proliferating the truth about candidates is a failing project that passively invests blind faith in the technologies of that same system as a praxis for mobilization and ultimately serves to obfuscate and mystify the global violence of the imperial west.Artrip and Debrix 14:"The claim about ... at times, urgency."Ryan E. Artrip, Doctoral Student, ASPECT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and Francois Debrix, professor of political science at Virginia Polytechnical Institute, “The Digital Fog of War: Baudrillard and the Violence of Representation,” Volume 11, Number 2

The aff’s use of fiat is an instance of mythological progress- the notion of a better future was fabricated by capitalism to expand the economy and knowledge but now in the age of semiocapitalism nothing is changed but our zombified brainsBifo 11:"The rise of ... and so on."(Franco 'Bifo' Berardi is a writer and theorist based in Bologna. His work revolves mainly around the aesthetics of the contemporary psychosphere. His latest books include Futurability, Phenomenology of the End, and The Soul at Work. In the 1970s he was one of the founders of the pirate radio station Radio Alice, the magazine A/traverso and of the political movement Autonomia, “After the Future”, https://libcom.org/files/AfterFuture.pdf) GNC

The impact is disidentification. In the infosphere, people are constantly bombarded with masses of information, but the more information the less the mind is able to empathize and personalize since the speed of info prohibits memorization. Bifo 3:"The acceleration of ... settles in memory."(Franco 'Bifo' Berardi is a writer and theorist based in Bologna. His work revolves mainly around the aesthetics of the contemporary psychosphere. His latest books include Futurability, Phenomenology of the End, and The Soul at Work. In the 1970s he was one of the founders of the pirate radio station Radio Alice, the magazine A/traverso and of the political movement Autonomia, “Precarious Rhapsody”, http://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/PrecariousRhapsodyWeb.pdf) GNC

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the debater who best engages in the catastrophic destruction of simulacra.Vote negative to engage in a politics of exhaustion. Late capitalism over-produces everything, including resistance, reducing everything to spectacle and commodity.

In tandem with this process, subjects are expected to consume endlessly and labor tirelessly. Exhaustion emerges as the dark side of capitalist exploitation and is a fundamental refusal to work, live, or act within our current mode of production. This brings the gears of predatory capital to a halt and enables the liberatory process of cultivating subjectivity. Bifo 4:"The process of ... mode of passivity"(Franco 'Bifo' Berardi is a writer and theorist based in Bologna. His work revolves mainly around the aesthetics of the contemporary psychosphere. His latest books include Futurability, Phenomenology of the End, and The Soul at Work. In the 1970s he was one of the founders of the pirate radio station Radio Alice, the magazine A/traverso and of the political movement Autonomia, “After the Future”, https://libcom.org/files/AfterFuture.pdf)

12/7/18

NOVDEC - NC - Kant

Agency is inescapable – the engagement of any thought or action presupposes is an expression of agency. Even if an agent sets the end to escape agency that’s only coherent under a system of setting and pursuing ends. Thus, the maxim, or the principle to pursue some end, must be universalizable. A Anything other than universalizability justifies distinct treatment of agents, i.e., if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end by recognized by others. B apriori knowledge operates independent of human experience which means constraints are only coherent universally C All value judgements concede the authority of the principle of equality since to be valuable, there must be a valuer. Only agents are intrinsically valuable since they can confer value onto other objects through second order desires; facts about the world thus only have value relative to agents.

It’s impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedom. Constraints are necessary to retain the value of freedom which implies that one cannot hinder the freedom of others.Engstrom:"Given the preceding ... that same freedom."Engstrom, Stephen. “Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge.” N.d. Available from http://www.philosophie.uni-hd.de/md/philsem/engstrom_vortrag.pdf.

Additionally prefer – 1 Argumentation – the process of justifying arguments presupposes the legitimacy to set the end of that argument. Willing we should abide by their ethical theory assumes we have the ability to set that end. Thus, it is incoherent to justify any other evaluative mechanism absent the NC.

2 Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. Any standard is an interpretation of the word ought. Thus, framework is functionally a topicality debate about how to define the terms of the resolution. Prefer this definition:

A. Resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A Kantian debate resolves this because it can easily be won without any prep since only analytical arguments are required. That outweighs because a pre-req to debating is giving people access to the activity.

B. Real world education—an understanding of Kantianism is key to understanding the law in the real world because most states abide by inviolable side-constraints in their constitutions—Germany proves.Ripstein 09:"Strictly speaking, the ... them into mere objects."Ripstein, Arthur. Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy. Harvard University Press, 2009. *bracketed for clarity and grammar*Key to education because it impacts debaters outside of the round and teaches them be good advocates the in their daily lives.

Negate:

1 There’s a division between perfect and imperfect duties: perfect duties are negative in nature and we must always obey while imperfect duties are positive and requires specific action. The right to privacy is a perfect duty since it’s negative while the right to know is positive, even if the right to know is good there’s no clear brightline for when we know to stop knowing, thus the right to privacy is always a more important consideration.

2 An implementation of anti-privacy law results in an arbitrary invasion on the personal lives of people operating as a unilateral extension of will unto specific groups.Ripstein 06:"I have made ... a shared public sphere."(Arthur Ripstein, 2006, “Private Order and Public Justice: Kant and Rawls”, University of Toronto Law) https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Ripstein/privateorder_publicjustice.pdf || LB

3 There is no apriori distinction between agents, but to violate the privacy of a candidate prioritizes a certain class of agents based on empirical conditions. That negates because universalizability requires obligations apply to everyone equally to generate reciprocal obligations.

Additionally, to uphold the right to privacy entails an omission – letting candidates keep what they want private while the aff is an active action, omissions lack a maxim as they don’t set an end thus turns are incoherent and risk of offense can only negate.

That implies the right to choose the course of one’s own life even if it is against one’s own self-interest. Dworkin:"But we must ... to realize that aim."Dworkin, Ronald (Professor of Law and Philosophy, New York University). Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1993.

Thus, the standard is consistency with an individuals ability to be free from paternalism. Prefer additionally - Being free from control is a commitment of all discursive exchange. Hoppe:“Argumentation does not ... he was disputing.” Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, p. 334.

This comes first since contradictions are logical impossibilities. Anything short of contradiction corresponds to some possible world and hence is at most implausible

I contend that valuing the right to know over the right to privacy is necessarily paternalistic. Control of your own self allows you to decide how to interact with others and governments ought not infringe that.Ripstein 06:"Private law protects ... the first moral power."(Arthur Ripstein, 2006, “Private Order and Public Justice: Kant and Rawls”, University of Toronto Law) https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Ripstein/privateorder_publicjustice.pdf || LB

Even if an action is necessarily wrong, there can’t be a moral contradiction ie there’s no tension between saying X is morally wrong and I’m doing X unless the wrongness has some relation to my feelings and sentiments about X. Thus, we have to look to sentiments as something that constrain action, as sentiments do influence our actions and are thus represented in taking an action. The AC thus must provide an alternative metaphysical account of the nature else it ceases to be competitive with the NC and functions on a lower level.

Second, Emotive attitudes are the core constituents of action insofar as they govern intending, e.g. to kill someone intentionally instead of merely foreseeing their death is to have a pro-attitude toward that feature of my action. But that means agency is a matter of attitude-setting, i.e. deciding what I should do means deciding what attitudes I should have toward the actions available to me. That means (a) every moral theory collapses into sentimentalism, (b) all moral theories must be consistent with innate sentiments since they can’t demand patterns of attitude from us that we’re incapable of, and (c) I’m the only one capturing the metaphysical nature of moral judgment, i.e. all non-emotive theories of morality are at best theorizing the wrong subject matter.

Third, moral theories demand compliance because morality is designed to form a universal system of mutual restraint upon agents. Individuals don’t follow guides that prescribe counterintuitive actions eg nobody would actually push the fat man off the bridge to save the many because it conflicts with their innate sentiments against that which means only sentimentalism can demand compliance or be reliable as a guide to action.

I contend that valuing the public’s right to know above candidate privacy is against our innate sentiments.

First, humans have an innate sentiment to privacy. De Zeeuw:"Westin’s categorisation provides ... into its concept."de Zeeuw, Daniel. “Immunity from the Image: The Right to Privacy as an Antidote to Anonymous Modernity.” Ephemera, 29 Sept. 2017

And, the right to privacy is a liberty and evolutionary adaptation that has led individuals to form an innate moral sentiment against domination by others that restricts their freedom of action.Haidt:"The Liberty/oppression ... the Darwinian sense."Haidt, Jonathan. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage, 2012.

Second, the neg defends a negative right, i.e. not taking away the ability to live our lives without interference from the state while the aff defends an active order which controls our lives. We form strongest sentiments in response to action so neg always outweighs. Spranca:"Subjects read scenarios ... of not acting."Mark Spranca, Elisa Minsk, and Jonathan Baron (University of Pennsylvania), “Omission and commission in judgment and choice,” 1991, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76-105

NOVDEC - T - Implementation

Interpretation and Violation: the affirmative must defend a governmental actor in a democracy bringing about a state of affairs in which there is a substantial increase of information about candidates for public office released to the public at the expense of the candidate’s right to privacy – they don’t.

Net Benefits: 1 Ground- I lose access to all policy based disadvantages because you refuse to defend implementation. You’ll just delink my offense in the 1ar by claiming implementation is irrelevant and defending vague value statements – kills specific education about politics and process. Supercharged on this topic – there’s super shifty advocacies Potischman 18 Potischman, Nina. Debated for Hunter College High School, earning 11 career TOC bids. Reached finals of the TOC, where she was the top seed and top speaker. Won Yale, Valley (twice), Valley RR, Harrison RR, Lex, Penn RR, and Harvard. Many speaker awards and competed in lots of late elimination rounds. Pomona College. “Victory Briefs November/December 2018 LD Brief.” TG"My inclination against ... very shifty affirmatives."

Impact:A Link turns phil good- you stop a key part of phil discussion about util because the neg has no incentive to read a util framework since it can’t generate offense under that framing.B Kills key neg topic ground ed because certain principles like adhering to the right to know are good in the abstract; it only makes sense taking everything into context. There are substantial issues in the way of right to know laws because how different laws/release mechanism like physical records or the internet affect privacy in different waysC Pigeonholes the negative out of util even that is my best layer. Aff shouldn’t be able to make the debate just phil because they are most comfortable on that layer.D Kills policy ed- in your world the we can never have any discussion of policies. Policy education outweighs phil ed on reversibility. Also outweighs on size of link—we still can have phil debates in my interp.

2 Topical Version of the aff- just defend implementation. You can still read the aff in my world that claims implementation is irrelevant, just allow the neg to read a framework that claims implementation is relevant and garner offense on arguments that depend on implementation.

Fairness outweighs – 1 Fairness is axiomatic to debate since you assume all arguments will be evaluated with a fair possibility of truth, else, just reject the case. 2 they’ve skewed the game which necessarily comes first because it makes evaluating the aff impossible. 3 Probability – theory norms are set all the time since arguments go in and out of the meta but nobody ever stops oppression with one position. 4 Oppression – fairness is the only way to prevent oppression in debate.McGinnis 14:"First, while unfairness ... *continuation* of it." (David McGinnis, October 31st 2014, “In Defense of Topical Switch-Side Debate”, NSDUpdate) || LB

Drop the debater: 1 it deters further use of poor and abusive methodologies 2 the round is already skewed so I don’t have real substantive recourse 3 we indict the entire 1ac performance – voting off anything is severance.

Use competing interps – 1 reasonability collapses since it’s a question of meeting a brightline 2 this T shell is a methods question – your brightline has to O/W the standards.

No RVI: you shouldn’t win the round for being fair; that’s illogical

Reject impact turns to the performance of T – 1 Perfcon—if you vote off something saying I shouldn’t read theory, it’s just meta-theory and infinitely regressive. 2 Even if T is a bad norm it doesn’t follow that you drop me, it just justifies counter interp—I can do what I want. 3 T isn’t exclusionary or violent – a we don’t exclude them, only persuade you that our methodology is best. Every debate requires a winner and loser, so voting negative doesn’t reject them from debate, it just says they should make a better argument next time. b we’re not imposing a norm or forcing you to do anything – our norm is open to contestation because you can just win that a counter-interpretation is a better norm which means the act of reading T can’t be violent 4 If T is violent – every argument is violent. Debate inevitably involves exclusions on content—making sure that those exclusions occur along reciprocal lines is necessary to foster democratic habits. This process outweighs the content of the aff. Anderson:"Arguments stand or ... further elaboration here."Amanda Anderson, Caroline Donovan Professor of English Literature and Department Chair at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Fellow at the School of Criticism and Theory at Cornell University, holds a Ph.D. in English from Cornell University, 2006 (“Reply to My Critic(s),” Criticism, Volume 48, Number 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 285-287)

Aff can’t leverage case- 1 Truth is determined through contestation which fairness controls the internal link to; means we can’t adjudicate the truth of your warrants. 2 We indicted the ability to read that argument in the first place so logically we’re on a higher layer. 3 Preserve the sanctity of theory form substance; 2 reasons a k2 maintain theory as recourse against abuse; its impossible to check since extinction probably outweighs fairness. b Conflates the pre and post-fiat distinction; EG. donating to charity doesn’t mean you should win if util is true. 4 incentivizes frontloading the aff with theory take outs instead of actual arguments which kills critical education

C. Standards – 1 Precision- A controls I/L to fairness; it’s the one most likely to be represented in topic lit and thus is the basis of all substantive arguments B I coopt pragmatics first offense- we use pragmatics to compare between two legitimate semantic interps of the topic, but theirs isn’t even eligible for comparison. C Jurisdiction- judge is contractually obligated by the tournament to vote aff is the resolution is proven true- means semantics first.

2 Predictability – Valued is ‘highly regarded or esteemed’ so it’s predictable that the res doesn’t prescribe action. I have the best def - first seven results that come up on Google indicate that it’s right. Open access dictionaries are the best gauges because they don’t exclude and are the first usages found. Outweighs the basis of all-pre-round prep is my ability to predict what the aff defends.

3 Ground – they can derive offense off-of a shift to a right to know paradigm or a policy-based approach outweighs since - 1 this topic literature is terrible, literally nobody advocates it in an ends-based fashion and 2 status quo policies value the right to privacy and right to know so absent frivolous inherency debates we have no idea if the plan is the SQUO.

D. Voters

Fairness- abuse arbitrarily skews your evaluation of the round. Drop the debater on T- A Substance is already skewed I’m always behind on the AC which means T comes first; abuse in the NC was reactive to AC abuse. B Drop the argument means you still lose; voting off anything else is severance. Use competing interps- A Reasonability is arbitrary especially with definitions which carry subjective interpretations B reasonability collapses to competing interps its just a question of whether your offense meets some brightline. No RVIs on T- A Chilling Effect- disincentivizes T triggers my offense if I win my norm is good. B Logic – you shouldn’t win for meeting your burden of being topical else we’d affirm every round. Outweighs – logic is process we use to make arguments.

Solves entirety of the aff – without articulating any right to reporters, the right of speaker anonymity prevents courts from issuing subpoenas to compel people to reveal the names of sources because it would violate the speaker’s right to remain anonymous.

Multiple NBs –

1 Cooption DA – we allow publication of JUST the story, giving reporters the right means they use the story as a SOURCE of info.

Causes nuclear war with North Korea – extinction.Krassenstein 17:"If you have ... realm of possibilities."(Brian, 5/21/17, editor in chief and co-founder of IR.net, “Why Trump May Risk Nuclear War With North Korea to Thwart Impeachment Proceedings.” http://ir.net/news/politics/124850/trump-war-north-korea/)

12/5/18

SEPTOCT - K - Bifo

stolen entirely from Montgomery Grayson Constantine and first card from Grant BrownThe question of rights protections for journalism is entirely irrelevant – the fact remains that it is devoid of any value. Their reckless demand to continue the flow of information, be it print or digital, is futile as it is all a figment of a virtual world with no basis in reality. This only furthers the oversaturation in our current spheres of media that make critique meaningless as it is no longer a question of content but rather a question of how information is communicated.D. Joyce-Ahearne, 2014"Print, as a ... us to see."Joyce-Ahearne is a former Contributing Editor of Trinity News and Trinity Graduate. “Keeping it hyperreal,” Trinity News. http://trinitynews.ie/keeping-it-hyperreal/

The aff’s use of fiat is an instance of mythological progress- the notion of a better future was fabricated by capitalism to expand the economy and knowledge but now in the age of semiocapitalism nothing is changed but our zombified brainsBifo 11:"The rise of ... and so on."(Franco 'Bifo' Berardi is a writer and theorist based in Bologna. His work revolves mainly around the aesthetics of the contemporary psychosphere. His latest books include Futurability, Phenomenology of the End, and The Soul at Work. In the 1970s he was one of the founders of the pirate radio station Radio Alice, the magazine A/traverso and of the political movement Autonomia, “After the Future”, https://libcom.org/files/AfterFuture.pdf) GNC

The impact is disidentification. In the infosphere, people are constantly bombarded with masses of information, but the more information the less the mind is able to empathize and personalize since the speed of info prohibits memorization. Bifo 3:"The acceleration of ... settles in memory."(Franco 'Bifo' Berardi is a writer and theorist based in Bologna. His work revolves mainly around the aesthetics of the contemporary psychosphere. His latest books include Futurability, Phenomenology of the End, and The Soul at Work. In the 1970s he was one of the founders of the pirate radio station Radio Alice, the magazine A/traverso and of the political movement Autonomia, “Precarious Rhapsody”, http://www.minorcompositions.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/PrecariousRhapsodyWeb.pdf) GNC

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the debater who best engages in the catastrophic destruction of simulacra.

Vote negative to engage in a politics of exhaustion. Late capitalism over-produces everything, including resistance, reducing everything to spectacle and commodity.In tandem with this process, subjects are expected to consume endlessly and labor tirelessly. Exhaustion emerges as the dark side of capitalist exploitation and is a fundamental refusal to work, live, or act within our current mode of production. This brings the gears of predatory capital to a halt and enables the liberatory process of cultivating subjectivity. Bifo 4:"The process of ... mode of passivity"(Franco 'Bifo' Berardi is a writer and theorist based in Bologna. His work revolves mainly around the aesthetics of the contemporary psychosphere. His latest books include Futurability, Phenomenology of the End, and The Soul at Work. In the 1970s he was one of the founders of the pirate radio station Radio Alice, the magazine A/traverso and of the political movement Autonomia, “After the Future”, https://libcom.org/files/AfterFuture.pdf)

Solves the aff better – C/A Johnson and Madera – issue of class hierarchy which only we withdraw form.

12/7/18

SEPTOCT - NC - Contracts

The reason morality exists in the first place is to regulate our actions towards others. If any moral code is not motivational then there is no reason to do what is right and that code merely fails to escape the skeptical conclusion. Motivational externalism collapses into internalism.Joyce:"Back to the ... an internal one.3

Additionally, agents can only be motivated by their own desires; not the external desires of another because A They are epistemically inaccessible B Individuals have unlimited wants that are not communicated and C We only care about our own desires as individuals are self-interested and don’t care about helping others. This means that you can’t independently motivate people to affirm.

Only a contractarian system that derives principles of mutual restraint from individuals’ self-interest account for this fact because contractarian principles are necessarily in the interest of all parties involved because they wouldn’t constrain their action against their willGauthier:"Moral principles are ... in their affairs."

Thus, the standard is consistency with contractarian principles of mutual restraint.

Additionally, prefer the standard1 Consent- Contractarianism is based on consent—implicit in acceptance of a contract—which ultimately determines what qualifies as a net good or harm. Moral theories must be based in consent otherwise actions could never be determinate.2 Infinite Regress- Only contractarianism can avoid an infinite regress. When we look to an external authority to derive normative conceptions of the good, we are left wondering why a certain good is actually good. Any conception of morality and what people are due begs the question of why our assessment of individual dues ought be preferred over other assessments of individual dues. Contractarianism avoids this by allowing individuals to construct conceptions of the good based on a rational restriction of their future actions. No other theory is derived from a morally neutral base.

Now negate - Journalist’s contractual obligation to the law of the United States overrides other obligations such as agreements of confidentiality. Kase:"Journalists ordinarily disclose ... of such resistance high."Kathryn M. Kase, When a Promise Is Not a Promise: The Legal Consequences for Journalists Who Break Promises of Confidentiality to Sources, 12 Hastings Comm. and Ent.L.J. 565 (1990). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol12/iss4/3Also turns the AC

12/7/18

SEPTOCT - NC - Hegel

First, truth is societal, objectivity is reliant on interactions within a community. Only through the state can truth arise and thus, agency be actualizedNuzzo 13:"What we have ... (or realize them)."(Angelica Nuzzo, Graduate Center and Brooklyn College, CUNY, anuzzo@gc.cuny.edu) 2013. “The Social Dimension of Dialectical Truth: Hegel’s Idea of Objective Spirit.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (8): 10-25. NP 4/2/16.

Second, experiences are validated by external reactions by others within the ethical community. If I were to close a door, I would not know if it had made a noise unless others reacted as well. Neuhouser:"The deduction's second ... more than one." Frederick Neuhouser: Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right by Johann Fichte. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Thus, the standard is consistency with the communal inclusion.

Impact Calc: actualization of individuals can only occur by placing them within society – the person alone is an incomplete picture of the subject. Mutual recognition of the spirit of others within a social order is necessary to reconcile conflicting conceptions of the self to form an identity. Wood 90:"Hegel expresses this ... is an I"Allen W. Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press. 1990. NP 3/31/16.

This interpretation of identity is best A. We exist in the empirical world – others can’t be discarded, they must be incorporated into our self-conception. B. normativity requires we see our actions as limited. Only others with relevant ends resist our own ends.

2 implications- A. The state is an end, not a means, since it defines collective values, rather than maximizing them,B. The rational state cannot be coercive or totalizing – it’s a manifestation of our freedom, rather than a limitation on it. If something prevents you from actualizing yourself, then your rights are not violated, since you had no right to that end initially.

Second, questioning our present ethical community precludes discussion of future ones – dialectical logic means that we find truth when we reconcile conflicting perspectives, so we must overcome present barriers to self-actualization since that opposes ability to conceptualize justice.

Now negate – confidentiality in press freedom is a denial of the role of the active citizen and the obligation to the ethical community. There is no identity in confidentiality – the division of public private is incoherent as the private individual only exists in relation to the public.Dawes 13:"Going back even ... an ineffective alternative."(Simon Dawes, February 12th 2013, “Press Freedom, Privacy and The Public Sphere”, Routledge) || LB

That implies the right to choose the course of one’s own life even if it is against one’s own self-interest. Dworkin:"But we must ... realize that aim."

Thus, the standard is consistency with an individuals ability to be free from paternalism. Prefer additionally - Being free from control is a commitment of all discursive exchange. That comes first.Hoppe:“Argumentation does not ... he was disputing.” Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, p. 334.This comes first since contradictions are logical impossibilities. Anything short of contradiction corresponds to some possible world and hence is at most implausible

I contend that giving reporters the right to protect confidential sources is necessarily paternalist.

Granting the right of reporters to protect confidential sources means that the reporters are the ones who make the choice of whether or not the confidential source is kept confidential. Giving the reporters the right means they can choose to disclose identity even if the source doesn’t want to. That functions as terminal defense to the AC since they can’t solve. And, even if the reporters don’t choose to give up the confidential source, the nature of reporter confidentiality means that they are the making a choice for the client and not letting them choose, the essence of paternalism.

12/5/18

SEPTOCT - T - MS Reporters

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: James Bowie TW | Judge: John SassoA. Interpretation – the affirmative debater must specify what constitutes a reporter in a delineated text in the 1ac.

B. Violation – they don’t

C. Standards

1 Topic Lit - Central issue of the topic literature is what is a sufficient definition of a reporter to create legislation.Posetti:"Many stakeholders have ... including investigative journalism."Posetti, Julie. “Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age.” Unesco Series on Internet Freedom, vol. 9, no. 1, ser. 1, 2017, pp. 1–191. 1.2 impacts – A The aff not taking a position ignores one of the central questions of the topic and skews both empirical and conceptual studies of the topic – negates any possible baseline for prep. B Topic lit key to resolvability because the only way claims can be evaluated is if they cohere with experts-absent lit we can’t evaluate any topical questions because we’re not independent experts on qualified immunity. Lit key to fairness because it determines how you evaluate the topic and operates as a side constraint on all other standards

2 Ground – they destroy any neg ground. A all DA’s must link to the aff and absent a definitive stance on what the aff is ALL neg ground is indeterminate which disincentivizes engagement. Means my only recourse is theory – neg abuse is reactive to aff abuse. B I lose all turn ground – to say they result in their impacts presumes a notion of what policy is being debated over which can only be contextualized given a definition of the demographic given protections. Ground is k2 fairness to equalize access to the ballot and is an independent voter as its constitutive of discursive exchange.

D. Voters

Fairness- abuse arbitrarily skews your evaluation of the round. Drop the debater on T- A Substance is already skewed I’m always behind on the AC which means T comes first; abuse in the NC was reactive to AC abuse. B Drop the argument means you still lose; voting off anything else is severance. Use competing interps- A Reasonability is arbitrary especially with definitions which carry subjective interpretations B reasonability collapses to competing interps its just a question of whether your offense meets some brightline. No RVIs on T- A Chilling Effect- disincentivizes T triggers my offense if I win my norm is good. B Logic – you shouldn’t win for meeting your burden of being topical else we’d affirm every round. Outweighs – logic is process we use to make arguments. Aff can’t leverage case- A) Truth is determined through contestation which fairness controls the internal link to; means we can’t adjudicate the truth of your warrants. B) We indicted the ability to read that argument in the first place so logically we’re on a higher layer. C) Preserve the sanctity of theory form substance; 2 reasons 1) k2 maintain theory as recourse against abuse; its impossible to check since extinction probably outweighs fairness. 2) Conflates the pre and post-fiat distinction; EG. donating to charity doesn’t mean you should win if util is true.

Enter cites from this debate below, with a title describing the argument. You can create more than one "entry" per round, to help keep things organized. You should NOT paste full text cards here, only cites - if you want to disclose open source, upload a document on the next page as well.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Cites box will only accept unformatted text. Wiki syntax (e.g. from Verbatim), is strongly preferred.

Entry Title:

Current file:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Your file will automatically be re-named on upload based on the provided info.

You can only upload one combined open source speech doc per round - uploading a new file will overwrite the old one.

Computed file name:

You're about to submit the following information:

You must be logged in to create an entry. After clicking "Add Entry", be patient! The page will automatically reload when your info has uploaded. If you navigate away from the page before it reloads, info may be lost.

Note: By submitting to the wiki, you grant the right for the information to be freely displayed, reproduced and archived.